2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant contested the High Court's decision dismissing his claim for title over two parcels of land and granting the respondent's counterclaims except for recovery of possession. The appellate court found that the trial judge improperly dismissed the appellant's claims by failing to consider key evidence and misconstruing his judicial responsibilities. The court determined that both parties traced their ancestry to the same person and noted the appellant's long-standing possession of the lands, thereby affirming his usufructuary or determinable title subject to the respondent's allodial title. The appellate court set aside the High Courts judgment except for the orders made on possession.
HONYENUGA, JA
This is an appeal by the plaintiff/appellant (hereinafter called the appellant) against the judgment of the High Court Cape Coast dated the 9th day of June, 2008. The said judgment dismissed the action of the appellant and entered judgment for the defendant/respondent (hereinafter called the respondent) upon the reliefs claimed in his counterclaim save that of recovery of possession. Costs of Gh¢1,000.00 was awarded against the appellant.
We must state that the appeal is a consolidated suit listed as Suits No. LS7/1994 and 8/1994 involving the same parties and two separate and distinct parcels of land.
The facts of this appeal are that the parties claim a common ancestry to the first chief of Akwakrom, a farming village near Mankessim. According to oral history of the Fantes, all the Fantes migrated and settled at Mankessim from Techiman in the present Brong Ahafo Region. At Mankessim, they began to split up into various units. The section of Fantes known as Ekumfis initially settled at a part of Mankessim called Edumadze where they moved out led by their Paramount Chief Nana Akyin I whom both parties to this appeal relate in different contexts. The undisputed fact is that since Nana Akwah I was the first chief of Akwakrom, he gave his name to it. The appellant claims that he and his clan trace their ancestry to the said first chief through his sons, hence the reference to them as “mbabanyin”. The respondent is undisputedly the successor in title to the first chief. By the Fanti custom or the custom prevailing among the Akans, the parties stand forever in the relationship of father and son. They can therefore not belong to the same family by reason of the matrilineal inheritance practiced by most Akans. The lands in dispute are distinct lands situated at a place called “Pomponu” and “Anomakyea”.
After several years of the appellant’s family being in possession of the land in dispute, the respondent laid claim to the land, claiming that the entire land belongs to his family stool because the appellants ancestors were the children of his ancestor, Nana Acquah I. The respondent further engaged a surveyor who demarcated the land such that the entire land formed part of the respondent’s stool land. The respondent also claimed that the appellant is a caretaker of the land in dispute. Unable to bear the continued disturbances of their possession the appellant caused the instant writs of summons which were accompanied by statements of claims to b